This is about business leadership but I’ll begin with business itself (because what is business leadership, but understanding the business of people).

Business: the business of monkey bars.

Business is all about monkey bars. Yes. Many people will point out its about process, systems & efficiency and they would be partially right. That’s the foundation for sustainable profitable business. But once that foundation is built, from there on out, it is about monkey bars. Now. A lot of people will not agree with me. They will be the people who see the framework as a network of highways & wireframe in which people & ideas & work traverse making right & left hand turns.

I don’t see it that way.

The process & wireframes are simply hamster wheels. Jump on and you get some speed, but no velocity. The speed & work & going around and around can make an organization feel good, feel like they’re doing a lot, but it really doesn’t get you anywhere.

Inevitably to gain some velocity, get somewhere, achieve some lift, you have to navigate the business of monkey bars. Make the leap from the lanes in your network to new place & new people. Make the leaps outside the existing wireframe to new places & ways of doing things.

Simplistically those monkey bars are letting go and taking a leap of faith you will grab the next rung.

Well. There is nothing simplistic about that. Businesses don’t like making leaps and they really detest swinging out from the nice safe rung they are holding onto, letting go of a rung and grabbing onto another.

I will say whether a business detests it or not, monkey bars are not meant to hang on to just one rung. The whole idea of monkey bars is getting from one end to another swinging from one rung to another and letting of the past rung to get to the next one.

If that isn’t metaphorically what business progress is about, I do not know what is.

This leads me to Leadership.

Navigating monkey bars with people.

My favorite leadership quote is:

“Consider becoming the type of energy that no matter where you go, or who you’re with, you always add value to the spaces and lives of those around you”

I thought of that quote because that type of energy is different than the business of navigating monkey bars. Navigating monkey bars isn’t really about energy it’s about reaching across from where you are to where you need to be. Its faith. It’s risk. Its uncertainty. Its doubt.

That said. There are so many leadership views, definitions, articles, etc. your head will spin. Go on twitter, hashtag leadership and you will be barraged by a gazillion good, and not so good, leadership thoughts you will wonder which to use.

We all have our favorites. I would argue none of them matter particularly if you want to think about Monkey bars. Monkey Bars is about pragmatic progress. Not inspiration, nor energy, nor necessarily fulfilling meaning or potential, it’s about letting go and moving on.

While most Good leadership articles discuss developing ‘tools’ for the team to verify which actions have value, and, crucially, which have not (affirm & assess behavior) when it comes to Monkey bars it may be more relevant to think of Tupac: “at some point you just have to leave the pieces behind and move the fuck on.”

Monkey bars demands you empower people to move on. But it’s a different moving forward. This one isn’t about walking or taking baby steps or giant leaps, but rather about letting go and having faith you can find another thing to hold onto. And, like monkey bars, it is not just once to get to the other side but a series of ‘letting gos’ to make it where you want to go.

Which leads me to leading in a monkey bar world.

Philosophically it would be great of you, as a leader, could actually place someone’s hands on the next bar and get them going. That ain’t the way it works. A leader’s job is to encourage letting go, have some faith and grab onto the next bar <even if they aren’t sure there is a next bar or know exactly where the next bar is>. To be honest. I’m not sure if this is objection management (eliminate objections to swinging out), unstuck management (getting people to unfreeze) or fear/uncertainty management (it will be okay, there is a safety net, the next rung is solid, etc) or idea management (make the next rung look like such a great idea it actually ‘pulls’ people to swing to it) or some combination of all.

What I do know is that this type of leadership CANNOT be about control, its about faith.

People monkey bars

You are dangling by one hand and reaching for another bar and … well … there will be a moment of uncertainty and reaching. But. That’s the gig. That’s the deal.

Letting go is the monkey bars of life. Letting go also means letting go of “fear” (not sure this is the right word but let me stick with it). Letting go is a double whammy to people:

Fear of leaving what is known & comfortable. Fear of leaving what you may be good at and what you have proven to others you can do. fear of leaving an environment in which you KNOW you can survive.

Fear of, well, the unknown. And its 2 unknowns:

The space between the rungs

The next rung itself

Suffice it to say letting go isn’t simple. In fact, it’s exactly like the first time you try the monkey bars. It takes some faith and confidence and, ultimately, desire to just go and swing out.

—

“All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.“

Havelock Ellis

—

I have one thought for people here. You have to stop looking at the space between the bars.

It actually helps to view with things in black & whites. Fear thrives in the gray of unresolved emotion and feelings. It festers there. Eliminate it.

Process monkey bars

Process is inherently not about Monkey bars, but rather concrete solid highways. Well. At least that is the way most businesses view it. They are wrong. Most process is not linear A-B-C-D-etc, but rather solid lily pads which should be used in different configurations depending on challenge and context.

This is counterintuitive to most business people. They see iterative doing and not monkey bar doing. The truth is efficiency & effectiveness are maximized by properly utilizing the Monkey bars.

Ponder that.

I would venture to guess no business school says what I just said.

Ideas (or innovation) monkey bars

80% of innovations and ideation are iterative. They are improvements upon what is. Extensions, shifts, lifts, etc. These are like constantly tuning up the engine. 20% are monkey bar ideas and innovations. None, I may add, are out of the box ideas or innovations.

The 20%. The big ideas are swinging from a rung on a solid construct, letting go and grasping another rung across a space. The rung is separated by space, but the innovation is strong enough for the organization to hold on to. Please note. You are making a leap, but not outside a box. Please note. This actually increases likelihood of success. Just as scary (letting go and grabbing onto something you trust will hold you), yet, the leap is made within a construct the organization can withstand.

Just ponder.

I would venture to guess no innovations guru says what I just said.

In the end.

Business loves linear solid tidy things. they are safe, theoretically predictable and typically showcases the characteristics of efficiency. But not everything can be reduced to a 5 step process, a 6 stage model, or even a production schedule. That is why I believe the power of the Monkey bars concept is it is tangible and intangible. Where it gets interesting, is that it enables us to understand how to move away from slow and incremental improvement, to leaps of improvement.

People hate change (but mostly for a different reason than you may think).

“A root cause of resistance to change is that employees identify with and care for their organizations. People fear that after the change, the organization will no longer be the organization they value and identify with — and the higher the uncertainty surrounding the change, the more they anticipate such threats to the organizational identity they hold dear. Change leadership that emphasizes what is good about the envisioned change and bad about the current state of affairs typically fuels these fears because it signals that changes will be fundamental and far-reaching. Counterintuitively, then, effective change leadership has to emphasize continuity — how what is central to “who we are” as an organization will be preserved, despite the uncertainty and changes on the horizon.”

Monkey bars maintain their structure you simply swing from one run to another. Same playground, same structure, heck, even the same kids playing with you, just another run. In overcoming resistance to change and building support for change, leaders need to communicate an appealing vision of change in combination with a vision of continuity. Unless they are able to ensure people that what defines the organization’s identity — “what makes us who we are” — will be preserved despite the changes, leaders may have to brace themselves for a wave of resistance.

So. In the end?

Letting go in business is certainly hard – and healthy.

Just be sure you don’t avoid the monkey bars because of this following thought for it would be a shame to suffer solely because it was familiar:

—

“People have a hard time letting go of their suffering.

Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.”

“… businesses want answers right away and many times high statistical reliability is not worth the cost it takes to achieve it.

Insights that point decision-makers to go “left” or “right” is innately good enough. Leaders are oftentimes not willing to pay for “turn left at a 30 degree angle” or “turn right at an 115 degree angle” because it may cost too much money and takes far too long to obtain those precise next steps through drawn-out methodologies.”

—–

Kuhn

==================

“Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination.”

=

John Dewey

==============

“Perfect numbers like perfect men are very rare.”

—–

Rene Descartes

============

This is about how ROI gets abused in decision making.

While this is about business what made me think about this is how the Trump administration typically discusses budgets with “we made cuts where there was no evidence of appropriate results” justifications.

Some of those justifications are terrifying.

Some of their choices are terrifying.

Shit. As one writer put it … “the math is terrifying.”

Well. I am going to let other people tear apart the incredibly short sighted Trump budget plans <which, yes, has scraps of good ideas> and I will focus on the criteria it appears they focused on — budget by ROI.

Budgeting by ROI.

Whew. The Trump administration is simply in my cross hairs at the moment, but this topic provides me with another excuse to blast my generation of business leaders and how their misguided thinking has screwed up not only how business is conducted, in general, but how we think about business.

Specifically on ROI, these hollow men hollowed out business of any of the ‘art’ and color which is associated with thriving businesses which contribute to society & cultural norms leaving at an empty husk of dollars & cents and black & white ROI decisions.

————–

ROI.

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

But old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind. Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity.

—————-

………. hollow men making hollow decisions ……

Look. I am all for analysis and love quantitatively judging tactics and initiatives. But I also understand that <1> numbers often do not always tell the entire story and <2> we far too often judge ROI on one specific outcome without assessing some value on some ‘ripple effect’ outcomes.

But, first, the numbers and ROI. I once wrote numbers have lost their mojo and, yes, I still believe that … just in a different context. In this case we are dealing with a generation of business people who have completely bastardized the use of numbers – stripping them of anything but the false veneer of what they call “simplistic stark truth.”

Now. ‘Simplistic stark truth’ sounds good … and it sounds really good in the business world. And, yet, in this starkness there is found falseness. The falseness can be found in its lack of imagination, its lack of depth and its lack of seeing anything but ‘what can be measured.’

This stupid view of numbers wreaks havoc when viewing ROI analysis.

Well. I could argue this all happened because ROI analysis permitted a shortcut for business people — a thinking & decision making shortcut. It permitted, and encouraged, an entire generation to not have to really think but rather fallback on “that’s what the analysis said.”

That is plain and simple lazy fucking business <not smart solid business>.

I will not argue that a good ROI analysis can offer a quick spontaneous glimpse of truth viable snapshot, in fact, it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who stated that the growth of intellect is spontaneous.

Of course, he hadn’t been bludgeoned with measurement, ROI and data driven decisions.

Of course, he was also on the one who stated … what is the hardest task in the world? To think. And. We are all wise. The difference between persons is not in wisdom but in art.

And that is where this ‘budgeting by ROI’ is most aggravating.

It is not that they cannot envision the art of decision making but rather they purposefully abstain from the art of decision making <and focus solely on ROI>.

It is not that they are oblivious to the qualitative nature & benefits of budgetary decision but rather they avoid the more difficult defense of the qualitative to utilize the more easy, and lazy, rationale of the quantitative.

All that said. While ROI seems a straightforward way to analyze, ROI, when evaluated properly, can be devilishly tricky. But. When done well it can inform some great insightful decisions and ideas.

ROI, when evaluated properly, can be devilishly painful … like having the devil screaming at you type painful … and even when done well tends to dull <not sharpen> the good ideas.

==============

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

==============

But ROI, measurement … practical rewards & output … that is what we ‘do’ these days. This seem to be our “how we conduct business handbook” these days.

We seem to have forgotten the value of unsought discovery and the value of … well … the benefit of the benefit <I spent money which created ‘x’ outcome … which enabled this other ‘x’ outcome>.

We seem to have culturally decided consciously to … “inevitably we will show a failure of imagination.”

What do I mean ? Let me use a quote from Le Carre’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy:

“…in the hands of politicians grand designs achieve nothing but new forms of the old misery…”

In our failure of imagination in our analysis of existing programs and initiatives we come up with grand designs begetting new forms of old misery. Which brings me back to Trump & his administration. These are supposed to be fucking business people and not politicians in place making these ‘grand designs.’

I admit.

I am wary of how ‘we the people’ will move forward with regard to budgeting and programs and policies and deciding what we should do to better America.

I am wary because I see little moving forward, no ‘trying to do what it takes to get there’ other than bludgeoning people with simplistic harsh solutions and no imagination to overcome the cries of ‘why waste money on something like this!”

I am wary because I see men of a generation who bastardized ROI analysis applying their own bastardized version of ROI thinking to people’s lives <under the guise of “applying it to people’s money/taxes” — no, they are not the same>.

I am a business guy.

I cannot envision running a business, or a government, without solid measurement, ROI & budgeting rigor. But I also know from running a business with hundreds of employees that the greatness of an organization does not reside solely in some number or some ROI analysis.

==========

“The true greatness of a nation is not measured by the vastness of its territory, or by the multitude of its people, or by the profusion of its exports and imports; but by the extent to which it has contributed to the life and thought and progress of the world.

===============

I tend to believe most of us every day schmucks recognize that ROI is part of doing business and insuring our hard earned money/taxes is used effectively. But I also believe that most of us every day schmucks also realize that some things just cannot be measured solely by numbers.

I worry that this Trump administration is reflective of the lost art of ROI analysis and the value of discovery

In their love of money as ‘winning’ they have lost sight of the value of seeking what is beyond the horizon. They have devalued imagination to such a point that they most likely define imagination as measurable in an ROI analysis. In other words they take ideas and thoughts, even ones with no history, and embrace them not by saying “what if” and “what could be” but rather by grinding it through some veg-o-matic ROI machine to assess its true value.

And that, my friends, while I am bashing the Trump administration, is actually how far to many businesses build their budgets.

And that, my friends, is not how America does business nor should any business … because it shows a failure of imagination and it is imagination, not ROI analysis, which drives real change and progress.

—————–

“Imagination has brought mankind through the dark ages to its present state of civilization.

Imagination led Columbus to discover America. Imagination led Franklin to discover electricity. Imagination has given us the steam engine, the telephone, the talking-machine, and the automobile, for these things had to be dreamed of before they became realities. So I believe that dreams–daydreams, you know, with your eyes wide open and your brain machinery whizzing–are likely to lead to the betterment of the world.

The imaginative child will become the imaginative man or woman most apt to invent, and therefore to foster, civilization.”

“Your mind is not a cage. It’s a garden. And it requires cultivating.”

=

A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray

—

“What did thinking ever do for me; to what great place did thinking ever bring me?

I think and think and think.

I’ve thought myself out of happiness one million times, but never once into it.”

=

extremely loud and incredibly close

—

This is a long rambling piece on thinking.

Ok. While often we talk about Time as the new currency in people’s lives, I think we should more often discussing Thinking as the new form of Life currency. Yup. Thinking as a value proposition.

In today’s complex business world it seems like we are increasingly dependent upon thinking work, creativity, and the ability to grasp and apply complex abstract multi-dimensional intellectual challenges. To be clear, thinking work is different from the traditional jobs & work of even the last generation. I am not suggesting past work generations didn’t think, but in an output/creation economy a worker could measure their success in physical quantities – how much stuff was created, sold, shipped or built.

Now. In an idea/thinking economy the measures of success are increasingly intangible <unless you deem profits & stock price as tangible>. In this type of less tangible value proposition all of a sudden ideas or ‘feelings’ create value.

Examples:

==

The iPod was better than other MP3 players not because it had more, but because it had fewer buttons and features – the right buttons and features for music on the go.

—

A restaurant chain displaces a competitor because it feels more (or less) like home.

—

A shoe company thrives because it gives away half the pairs that you buy.Even vacuum cleaners, cars, and backyard grills are made, marketed and sold in ways that were inconceivable in the past.

==

Producing these products and services, consequently, is less a function of the volume of resources that are put in and more a function of “thinking investment” & “creating perceptions <with value>.” In the past more raw materials, better equipment, or people punching a time clock translated directly to more “output.”

Today, value creation is often more about efficiency.

Or minimizing to maximize.

Minimize what to put in and then maximize how creatively you craft the features.

This means that production in today’s business world is about economical/efficient input … and selling is about effectiveness <value creation thru thoughtful ideation>.

That means thinking is the foundation of today’s economy value creation.

Yikes. Yikes because thinking ain’t easy. In fact there is an inherent frailty in the intangible of this thinking foundation.

Frailty? Yup. A couple of frail aspects to this thinking world I am outlining.

There is a mental frailty when it comes to coming up an ‘idea’ <good ideas are tough to come up with and typically very personal> … and there is a positioning in the mind frailty because the value resides more in ‘thought’ than in anything real <kind of nebulous when in thought form> … and then there is a simple ‘space’ frailty in the thinking mind. Good ideas are often quick to arise and quick to die. Ideas , and consequently thinking, is scary.

While I am not particularly fond of the articulation of this creative execution the message is truer than true.

Ideas are scary. This leads me to the last frailty: a frailty in the mind’s capabilities. This frailty is reflected in sheer mind storage space available <or the lack thereof>.

It’s not that there is any decline in mental capabilities but rather the mind becomes overwhelmed with too much thinking. By the way, this is not information overload, that is a different issue, this is simply thinking too much. Too much thinking when the mind would be at its best by … well … not thinking.

Too much thinking can kill inspiration <as all the reasons why it can’t be done arise>.

Too much thinking can kill a thought <as it gets overwhelmed by new thoughts>.

Too much thinking can kill an idea <shifting from good to mediocrity>.

===

“It is a fundamental paradox of human psychology that thinking can be bad for us.”

Ian Leslie

===

By following our own thoughts too closely we can lose our bearings as our inner chatter drowns out common sense and stifles our ‘good thinking’. Most of us are actually really pretty good at naturally stripping away unimportant to what is important when we think. Unfortunately we also suck at stopping after stripping.

What I do know for sure is that in a study of shopping behavior the less information people were given about a brand the better choice they made. Specifically <and this will matter to those marketers who like to give gobs of minutiae to people believing it will help them make a better choice> … when offered full ingredient details the consumer got confused by their options <unable to discern differences and importance> and actually ended up choosing a product they did not like <i.e., people were forcing themselves to select on a criteria that was not really ‘heart preference’ but rather “head <logical> preference.” And they were not happy in the end when they used.

Sometimes the mind gets overwhelmed if it has to think about too much.

This leads me to believing that the art of thinking needs to be nurtured and trained as well as possible to be successful in today’s world. Everyone has a natural thinker within us.

I believe everyone has some innate ability to treat pieces of information as jigsaw puzzle pieces waiting to be put together and create something. But within that innate ability there are some people who seem to slow down rapidly moving pieces mentally so they can see everything and, conversely, there are other people who only see blurs or pieces of the pieces. But everyone, yes everyone, has some ability to sift through the jumbled pot of information and, like a Williams Sonoma colander, trap the essentials and quickly let the inessential run off.

Yes. Thinking has always been about bringing stuff in and letting stuff out.

—

“… we are cups, constantly and quietly

being filled. the trick is knowing how

to tip ourselves over and let the

beautiful stuff out.”

Ray Bradbury

===

Even all that said … today’s world does demand a different type of thinker.

—-

The Thinker

Historically we contemplated in retreat, silence, solitude, and within our own mind. We solved problems in isolation, deep thought, and through introverted reflection.

==

The Contemporary Thinker

In an age of twittering, blogging, social networking, and sophisticated work-place networks, global science networks, and mass-participation and collaboration, information is exchanged in a nonstop connected world.

—–

Today’s thinking and problem solving has to live in a world where we are inter-connected, globally accessible and the exchange of information is fluid. This actually means we have the ability to bring problems closer to solutions and ideas faster to challenge the status quo.

So. Part of the challenge for the next generation of thinkers is how to let stuff out before they simply get overwhelmed with the amount that they bring in. This also means building a stronger ability to immerse in knowledge and then step out of immersion to think.

Uh oh. The stepping in and out is … well … difficult. Even for those who are good at it. In today’s digital/networked society where the world, cultures and people share their experiences via a variety of web based social platforms … information travels, it is fluid, and experiences are shared … meaning that ideas swirl around for thinkers to grab out of the ether <as long as they are paying attention>.

—-

“If you don’t think, then you shouldn’t talk.”

March Hare, Alice in Wonderland

========

“Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”

Robert Frost

———–

Thinking is complex <so trying to tell someone ‘how to think’ seems kind of silly>. But thinking encompasses being creative, thoughtful, and solutions oriented <for thinking without a conclusion isn’t really thinking>. And this thinking is being done in a world where problems are extremely complex, target expectations, markets and industry variables are continuously moving, and our brains often seem like small computers within enormous networks that are constantly reconfiguring.

Well. Let me tell you one last aspect which makes thinking even more difficult <and scary>. Let’s just say most of us every day schmucks, & businesses, are notorious for being future blind.

Why? Well.I am sure there are a variety of reasons, but I would suggest two main reasons:

it is difficult to envision something that doesn’t really exist today, and

we think about insights, the things that inspire true thinking, as the outcome … not the enabler for outcome.

Many years of innovation work have shown me that insights are not enough. In fact, they are fairly worthless on their own. Insights have little intrinsic value without being transformed into frameworks and narratives that can drive strategic action.

–

The best part is when you realize the value is not in the insight itself but what can be done with it. A good insight can inspire unique frameworks, narratives, and actions appropriate for very different challenges and opportunities.

==

I included that insight thought because I sometimes believe that thinking is hard because we love outcomes so much. Often insight is simply the enabler of an eventual outcome <therefore thinking only indirectly has an outcome>. And insights are not all created equal therefore not all outcomes are created equal.

<yikes … there is a nasty Life formula>

Look. All I really know is that today’s world runs on thinking <not making shit> and that thinking is not a particularly valued ‘product’ in today’s world.

We synthesize new ideas constantly.

We tend to learn rapidly.

Yeah. Don’t shake your head and disagree. Most people learn a lot of new stuff really fast.

Uh oh. While we learn, and think, and apply what we just learned … you make mistakes.

Yikes. Mistakes are tough to handle. We know we need to make them but get crucified in real life <and in business> and by society in making them.

This association makes thinking a disease in some people’s minds.

Think too much and bad shit happens.

Think too much and you get terminally ill.

—-

“Thinking has become a disease.”

Eckhart Tolle

—-

“The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.

The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.

The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.”

A. A. Milne

—————

Well. Thinking can be a disease to some … and improve health in others. Suffice it to say the mind is an amazing instrument when used correctly and a very destructive weapon when used incorrectly. While the mind thrives when dealing with problems it also loves true thinking — thinking driven by you <not a problem>.

This type of thinking is difficult and, frankly, most people don’t like doing it.

“No matter how careful you are, there’s going to be the sense you missed something, the collapsed feeling under your skin that you didn’t experience it all. There’s that fallen heart feeling that you rushed right through the moments where you should’ve been paying attention.

Well, get used to that feeling. That’s how your whole life will feel some day.

This is all practice. “

—

Chuck Palahniuk

====

“It’s never as good as you want it to be; It’s never as bad as it seems.”

—

William Chapman

====

Well. Chuck Palahniuk writes some really deep shit. Stuff that really makes you think. That said, I have to admit, when I read the opening quote a lot of things about living Life, in business and personal, made a helluva lot more sense to me.

Maybe it’s just me, but, it seems like most of Life is tainted by sense of constantly missing ‘something’ … as in something maybe better than where we are and what we are doing and feeling or in what we have done. It isn’t always this huge disappointment. It’s just like a little nagging sliver in the palm of your hand.

All the while this sense is interposed with glimpses of … well … what is actually better. We, being we humans, naturally don’t accept the sense we missed something. Therefore we begin becoming more & more careful with how we invest our time and more careful about what we do <or don’t do>. Basically, we start treating our lives carefully assuming that if we do so, we will have less sense of something missing and more glimpses of ‘the better we feel like we are missing sometimes.’

Boy.

Are we wrong.

Boy.

We sure are investing a shitload of energy chasing something I believe Life simply dangles in front of us to tease us with thoughts of ‘what could be.’

It is quite possible we should learn to accept the nagging sense of missing something as … well … good. Good as in it makes us a little more alert for ‘things.’ Maybe it just makes us pay attention a little more.

Maybe we should accept the feeling isn’t lostness nor the thought that maybe we were not on the right path in Life.

Maybe we should just accept it as a characteristic of a good life.

Anyway. All of this leads me to a quote, and a thought, I vehemently disagree with:

======

……. me reading this quote ……

“People who succeed tend to find one goal in the distant future and then chase it through thick and thin. People who flit from one interest to another are much, much less likely to excel at any of them. School asks students to be good at a range of subjects, but life asks people to find one passion that they will follow forever. “

David Brooks

<The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources Of Love, Character, And Achievement>

=======

That is just bullshit.

Life does not ask people to find one passion that they will follow forever. That’s like saying that I love ice cream, but I am only going to eat chocolate ice cream for the rest of my life because it is my favorite flavor.

What a potentially boring life.

What a potentially ‘missed opportunity’ life.

The whole ‘passion’ discussion makes my head hurt so badly I start rubbing my temples so hard that then the sides of my head hurt too.

Let’s be clear. It is not passion <although glimpses of passion is always fun>. Life asks you to do the best, be the best and pursue what you believes makes you the best of what you could be … that’s it.

That’s what you follow forever.

Is success achieving that ‘one goal in the distant future?’ Maybe for some. But ‘people who succeed tend to find one goal and chase it’ is bullshit. What happens if I suck at picking that one goal or maybe my sense of direction sucks as I ‘go thru think & thin’ getting to the horizon <only to find I am standing in nowhere land>?

Look.

I am all for people pursuing goals.

I am all for people being passionate.

I am all for pursuing thru thick & thin <assuming what you are pursuing is ‘real’ and not some fantasyland>.

But I am not all for putting the blinders on, the bit between the teeth and then run like hell toward some goal on the horizon.I do believe you should be inspired in your actions … but inspired is very different than passion.

Passion. I have a passion … it is for something.

Inspired. I can be inspired by many somethings and moments and experiences and … well … you get it.

Here is a Life truth. The people who tend to succeed are inspired … by one thing or by many things … doesn’t matter. They are just inspired people.

===

“All the effort in the world won’t matter if you’re not inspired.”

Chuck Palahniuk

===

All that said. Let me circle back to the beginning. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much and how hard you pursue something … you will still have a sense of having missed something. Everyone has an undercurrent sense, a feeling, of missing something.

Look. We all pursue one thing — happiness. We may couch it in some ‘idea I have’ or ‘money’ or “purpose” or, well, anything else life has to offer, but we all want, and therefore seek, happiness. I would suggest what Chuck suggested we think about is not really acceptance of ‘lesser than what we want’ but rather accept the balance Life offers us.

The balance in that we will almost naturally have some sense of ‘something better’ no matter how careful we are in managing our lives or the pursuit of some goal.

The balance of actually getting a glimpse of that ‘something’ and not having rushed thru some important moment versus the missing feeling.

Well. Having said all that.

When I read the opening quote I had a better understanding of why so many people are unhappy far too often.

Because if we DON’T accept the sense of missing something as part of living a full Life … well … that means you will spend your entire life chasing that sense <to suffocate it in some way>. If you do that, well, that pursuit will inevitably suffocate your Life <and that is an unhappy Life>. Ponder. Maybe I am missing something. And maybe I am not.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

=================

Contradictions. My favorite topic (certainly in business). Now. This is a tricky conversation in business because most business people like one-dimensional thinking & ideas. Yeah. That sounds harsh but at its core is the argument of “stand for one thing” combined with “simple is success”. Both of which ignore the fact most people find contradictions interesting (therefore cognitively retain the imprint better) and simple doesn’t necessarily mean ‘one thing’ but rather ‘understandable.’ I would also argue contradictions, or multidiemensional is more relatable. My main example of this is in discussing Brand Personality where the whole idea of ‘one thing’ is absurd.

Regardless. I personally love the idea of ‘owning a contradiction’ because it is a descriptive phrase that invokes people to hold two opposing concepts concurrently.

And more importantly? It is a smart idea. And I don’t care who you are, you like smart ideas <everyone does>.

Everyone likes ideas that make you think. A contradiction, or an idea capturing a contradiction, is an idea that makes you think.

Patient quickness.

Make haste slowly.

Big and fast.

Small but powerful.

Less is more.

That kind of stuff. Literally, I imagine we are simply discussing oxymorons.

But. I will get back to that (because I am curious and looked up all that stuff). Owning a Contradiction is excellent for when you are talking about brand positioning and company’s value propositions and what people think about an organization (or product or service).

A contradiction offers something that may seem counter intuitive and make people cock their heads a little bit and think “how do they do that?”.

From an organization value proposition standpoint (what is it we do best – with a skew toward functional) owning a contradiction is kind of the holy grail.

In particular you love to zero in on some aspect of more for less.

(Think of that as the holy grail value proposition sweet spot)

What do I mean?

That’s like …

More happiness-satisfaction less worry.

Get more Services at less cost.

More nutrition in least (smallest) portion.

Do more with less (plus/minus relationship).

Do most with least amount of money/budget.

Large global resources attention to small details.

“who say you can’t be big and nimble?”

Stuff like that.

If you can build an organizational culture and innovations and attitudinal structure with something like that at the core you are golden. Now and for the future.

Anyway. Whenever I bring up owning a contradiction, at first blush, everyone loves the idea. The challenge is when people want to “understand it.”

So. Inevitably you get the smart(ass) question … ‘are you talking about an oxymoron or a paradox’?

(yikes. Here is where I need to search dictionaries for help)

Oxymoron or Paradox. Here are the two definitions.

An oxymoron as “a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in ‘cruel kindness’ or ‘to make haste slowly’.”

(c’mon … who uses ‘locution’ in a sentence … jerks)

A paradox is defined as “a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth”.

Uh oh. That didn’t help me. Is one a figure of a speech and one a sentence? Geez. ‘Self contradictory but in reality expresses a possible truth.’

Now. That sounds good. Unfortunately if I research oxymoron I get more of what I am talking about with owning a contradiction despite the fact the explanation for a paradox seems … well … righter.

The Oxymoron is a figure of speech that deliberately uses two contradictory ideas. This contradiction creates a paradoxical image (okay. They just used oxymoron and paradox together ???) in the reader or listener’s mind that generates a new concept or meaning for the whole.

Some typical oxymorons are:

– a living death

– sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

– a deafening silence

– bitter sweet

– The Sounds of Silence (song title)

– make haste slowly

– conspicuous by his absence

Ok. It gets worse (trying to understand what it is supposed to be) when you look at these.

The following seem more like paradoxes to me, but they all are from a book called “Oxymoronica” by Dr. Mardy Grothe.

—

I can resist everything but temptation.

Oscar Wilde

=

Don’t be too clever for an audience. Make it obvious. Make the subtleties obvious also.

Billy Wilder

=

Just be truthful – If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

Barbara Stanwyck

=

Please all, and you will please none.

Aesop – 6th century BC

=

Nothing is permanent, except change.

Heraclitus – 4th century BC

=

Okay. Regardless. Owning a contradiction (to me) is not only smart but it articulates something in a way that it actually becomes a figure of Speech (which also has a literal definition by the way)

Uh oh. Another definition. Figure of speech? A figure is worth a thousand words (A picture is worth a thousand words)

—

Figurative language:

One meaning of “figure” is drawing” or “image” or “picture”. Figurative language creates figures (pictures) in the mind of the reader or listener. These pictures help convey the meaning faster and more vividly than words alone.

We use figures of speech in “figurative language” to add color and interest, and to awaken the imagination. Figurative language is everywhere, from classical works like Shakespeare or the Bible, to everyday speech, pop music and television commercials. It makes the reader or listener use their imagination and understand much more than the plain words.

Anyway. I come back to “expresses a possible truth.” Owning a contradiction (when you aren’t making it up and it is something of value) is figurative, a paradox and most importantly is communicating the possibility of a truth.

Something meaningful but contradictory all to the benefit of whoever you are communicating to.

In a way it is quite possible I like contradictions because they aggressively and interestingly attack people’s ignorance. They make you think of things that may not seem possible, but become an interesting ‘truth’ (and we learn something). To me that is the cognitive power of a contradiction.

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.

Confucius – 6th century BC

I will admit. Contradictions are personal to me. Lunch bucket intellectual is my contradiction. Bring a blue collar work ethic day in and day out but relentless intellectual curiosity to seek insights and ‘truth.’ I guess I am also a generalist specialist.

All that said. Bottom line? Any time you can own a contradiction you are more interesting ... as a product, as a business or even as a person.

This is about marketing and communications and plain packaging versus branding … as well as truth and deceit.

—

“In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market.

In practice, if everyone went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed.

To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.”

=

Edward Bernays

—-

“All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it.

Or we can help lift it to a higher level.”

=

Bill Bernbach

———————–

I wrote about this for two reasons:

Awhile back the Guardian had a small editorial on plain packaging <because Great Britain is thinking about having plain packaging for cigarettes>. Within the short thought piece it poses the question of “what if there were only plain packaging … for everything?”

I have been thinking about the moral responsibility of people in advertising & marketing communications

Well.

Both topics are relevant to anyone in the professional communications industry not just from a true business perspective but rather a philosophical ‘what do I really do for a living’ type perspective.

Why? One of the hot topics among young people when I speak to them is “the moral depravity of capitalism” and its flag bearer “the morally corrupt advertising.”

Regardless. A discussion about plain packaging for everything spans capitalism, brands & branding and people themselves <how much they can actually be influenced to do something they don’t really desire doing>.

I remain steadfast in this discussion.

Capitalism, in and of itself, is not morally corrupt. Only people can be moral or immoral.

Advertising, in and of itself, is not morally corrupt. Only people can be moral or immoral.

Regardless of my steadfastness, plain packaging for everything sparks an interesting discussion about not only the morality of marketing & advertising but the role, and importance, of brands in people’s lives.

I will begin with the Guardian editorial:

—————-

== The Guardian ==

Unthinkable? Plain packets for everything.

Brands allow us to choose, but they also sometimes stop us choosing wisely – perhaps everything should carry a warning

—

Could the plain wrappers, which the government has said it will introduce for cigarettes, be usefully extended, to other potentially harmful products?

Alcopop could be divested of its deceiving glamour, fatty food could be labelled as just that, sugar could be generically dispensed. Whisky would just be a brown liquid in a bottle without pictures of terriers or a chap striding along. Marmalade would just be a brown substance in a jar (after all, when you buy oranges they often put them in a plain brown paper bag). Ice cream would no longer carry names reminding you of heavy handguns or novels by Mark Twain. Except, of course, in very tiny letters at the bottom of the pack. High heeled shoes could be stripped of their fashion names and carry a warning about muscle strain and bunions to come.

Fast cars could have their badges pruned.

The more we extend the list the sillier it becomes.

Yet we know how many designs for marijuana packets were patented in the hope that it would be legalised: the magic wand of branding could then be waved over them to bring big profits to these far-sighted entrepreneurs.

Brands allow us to choose, but they also sometimes stop us choosing wisely.

Perhaps the problem could be tackled more directly by simply attaching a label to everything saying that branding should be taken with a pinch of salt. Naturally a label like that on an actual packet of salt could cause confusion, so that one might have to say in that case that branding could be a snare and a delusion.

————–

I imagine beginning the discussion you have to use the end of the editorial – branding could be a snare and a delusion.Those words give this conversation a lot to grapple with.

Brand <and branding>.

Exchange Value.

Deceit.

Caveat emptor.

Influencing.

Information and disinformation.

Now. The issue of morality & responsibility has been discussed for decades.

The most famous public discussion may have occurred sometime in the 1950’s. Printer’s Ink <a magazine I believe> published an editorial Toynbee Vs. Bernbach on Advertising <oddly, in this day & age where you can find almost everything online … I can’t find a copy of it … therefore I am dependent upon a sole bad hard copy I made years ago>.

The summary?

—–

Arnold Toynbee:

Advertising is moral mis-education.

Advertising is an instrument of moral, as well as intellectual, mis – education. Insofar as it succeeds in influencing people’s minds, it conditions them not to think for themselves and not to choose for themselves.

It is intentionally hypnotic in its effect it makes people suggestible and docile. In fact, it prepares them for submitting to a totalitarian regime.

Bill Bernbach:

Only people are moral or immoral.

Advertising, like so many technologies available to man, is neither moral nor immoral. Is eloquence immoral because it persuades? Is music immoral because it awakens emotions? Is the gift of writing immoral because it can arouse people to action?

No.

Yet eloquence, music and writing have been used for evil purpose.

No, advertising is not moral or immoral.

Only people are.

—–

When I discuss capitalism & advertising I place both of these thoughts on screen and suggest people have to make a choice.

Are people sheep … or smart enough to make decisions on their own?

Are all people who do marketing & advertising immoral?

Well. After all those questions you realize that plain packaging isn’t the issue and that the topic is complex.

Suffice it to say, selling shit <marketing or manufacturing>, is always about balancing sales & ethics & values. The moment you lose sight of that is the moment your moral compass, or business, goes off the tracks. And you have to pay attention to your moral compass if you are in the communications business because there is gobs of research showing that the degree of brand loyalty increases sharply from the age of ten, and peaks around the age of 30. There is gobs of research showing that the degree of emotional involvement a person invests with a brand increases their irrationality.

Why the hell did I include those factoids? Because that means if you are in the communications business <this includes packaging by the way> you have a responsibility. That responsibility is being ethical & being truthful and not being deceitful.

Basically people know and love brands.

People know the names of brands, remember what they see and hear about them and form opinions of them.

And people actually do NOT like plain packaging — they like all the wrappings around the shit they buy. And, I would note, the trappings are important because brand value <which creates a version of a relationship> don’t form in a vacuum. To create real brand value you have to create strong attitudinal foundations. Some suggest an attitudinal foundation is a ‘bond’ <I do not but it makes the point>.

I cannot remember who built this “brand loyalty pyramid” but , in general, it says pretty much the same thing as every ‘loyalty pyramid’ you will see when you walk thru the door of any credible communications company:

—

• Presence: does the consumer know anything about the product or service?

• Relevance: does it cater for their needs?

• Performance: does it deliver?

• Advantage: is it better than others in some way?

• Bonding: nothing else can beat it.

—

All consumers, whether kids or adults, form brand relationships in this way.On a side note, interestingly, research shows that among kids, around half of all brands change their typology every two years, highlighting an extremely rapid ‘migration’ of attitudes. But, in general, Millward Brown research shows that brand allegiance changes very little across the generations. In two out of three categories, adults and kids are bonded to the same brands. Many brands manage to tap into needs and desires that transcend the age of the consumer, and many do this through careful product segmentation.

I included a lot of this stuff because we use the word ‘brand’ often in a very simplistic way and it is a very non simplistic concept. It has to do with perceptions, attitude and expectations which inevitably lead to specific behaviors.

All this gets me back to plain packaging and, conversely, discussing ‘brand.’ Plain packaging suggests everything is equal. Toynbee would like that. Everything equally good and equally bad. Unfortunately for Toynbee, whether you believe it or not, the shit we buy varies in quality.

Could we exist, or subsist, on the lowest quality? I am fairly sure we could.

But our everyday existence is made up of more than simply existing. What I mean is … how dull would life be if that is all there was?

To be clear, even within the lowest income purchasers, those who have a heightened sense of survival, there remains hope for something better and the occasional indulgence of something better. Non-plain packaging permits a manufacturer to showcase ‘better’ or ‘different’ so we, the people, can make choices.

Ah. Making choices. People make choices. Non-plain packaging helps them make choices.

Professional communicators also make choices. This leads me to something called … “Do this or die.”

Do this or Die is a manifesto written by Bill Bernbach <one of the founders of the advertising agency Doyle, Dane & Bernbach – DDB> and it is written to those who CREATE advertising and messaging — the professional communicators in the world. It is a directive ‘the creators of messaging’ to create inspiring truthful meaningful messaging. He suggests in his manifesto to the ‘creators’, those who should bear the burden of ‘non deceitful messaging,’ that the people are not a nation, or world, of stupid people.

People are smart. And maybe ‘the people’ can be tricked once, but very very rarely twice.

“DO THIS OR DIE” is a warning, a promise, a call-out to the lazier advertising and marketing and communications professionals.

A warning to the ones who accept and produce mediocrity.

A warning to the ones who don’t understand the power of truth and the ones who compromise ‘truth’ in the interest of sale or ‘false differentiation.’

Do this or Die. What we professionals communicate must be truth:

==

“… the messages we put on those pages and on those television screens must be the truth. For if we play tricks with the truth, we die.

Now. The other side of the coin. Telling the truth about a product demands a product that’s worth telling the truth about. Sadly, so many products aren’t. So many products don’t do anything better. Or anything different. So many don’t work quite right.

Or don’t last.

Or simply don’t matter.

If we also play this trick, we also die.”

==

This means, to me, discussing plain packaging is discussing the symptom of a larger problem. It becomes not a discussion of marketing or communications or even capitalism; it becomes a discussion about people and doing what is right versus what is wrong and choices.

I love this discussion with young people.

It is a hard discussion in which they may approach it with some naiveté but they also approach it with truth in hand. Truth that while there are moral and immoral people in the world and that even moral people will slide down the slippery slope of mediocre ethical behavior under the guise of either <a> not knowledgeable enough to do anything better, or <b> everyone else is doing it.

In the end.

Let me say I despise what Arnold Toynbee suggests with regard to people.

I refuse to believe people aren’t smart enough to make knowledgeable decisions.

I refuse to believe people can be influenced to such an extent they desire things they shouldn’t desire.

I refuse to believe people can be manipulated to do wrong things <but certainly can be inspired to take positive actions>.

I do believe communications can influence attitudes.

I do believe communications, done well, can affect behavior.

But I don’t believe communications can make someone do something they don’t want to do … nor convince them in any consistent way to do wrong things.

Just as you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink, communications can lead someone somewhere <immorally or morally>, but inevitably a person makes the moral or immoral choice.

Now. Here is something I am emphatic with when talking with young people <and as often as I can with older people>.

I do believe professional communicators have a higher responsibility than other folks.

I do believe … all of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society.

We can brutalize it.

Or we can help lift it to a higher level.

Plain packaging? Why am I against it?

Well. I would lose an opportunity to help lift society to a higher level.

Spontaneity has given way to cautious legalisms, and the age of heroes has been superseded by a cult of specialization. We have no more giants; only obedient ants.”

―

Roger Lowenstein

============

Ok. I get asked a shitload about why people do the things that they do. It seems, to me, that people inherently slot behavior into good or bad, smart or stupid and even villain or hero.

Oh. If it were only that simple.

In general we would wish our heroes are endowed with a fierce intellect, great <though not infallible> personal integrity, toughness tempered with essential compassion for the less fortunate, and a sense of humor. We would like our heroes to fiercely attack life in a way that suggests they never concede that anything is someone else’s problem. And, yet, people <who are the heroes & villains> are naturally complex and almost always filled with contradictions. The contradictions are relentless. So relentless that they almost make you rethink that being a good person is relative.

Sometimes the heroes we see in today’s society are so visibly flawed it makes you think about all the moralistic mumbo jumbo we middle class white folk voice with regard to what is right and what is wrong. In fact, from a moralistic standpoint, we start defining some behaviors & characteristics as, uhm, as if there is a difference between bad things and bad things.

Villianry <I made up that word> gets normalized in some wacky way. What I find oddest by that is doing the right thing is a basic innate instinct.

We are all born with it.

We all certainly embrace the concept.

We all actually enjoy doing it.

We all like it in our heroes.

And, yet, it seems like more and more we are hesitating to demand it of our heroes.

I hesitate to suggest that Society has created this situation. society, an culture, has certainly done its darn best to showcase the fact there is no such thing as a perfect person and that we should embrace the flaws in people.

And, for the most part, I agree with that.

But, what seems to be happening is that while the spirit of goodness and what is right and what we know we should demand from a hero <which shouldn’t contain any villain> remains, something is making the modern spirit hesitate to make the demands of perfection with regard to “good” in our heroes. It almost seems like we hesitate to ask for what we want and in doing so we accept, sometimes even embrace, compromise in our heroes.

In our hesitation we are permitting some villains, posing as heroes in their own minds, to step forward and pose as heroes.

=====

“We’re born into a world where the rules are already defined. The game is out there. It’s either play or get played.”

Omar

=====

These villains, fake heroes, chooses to play the game their own way … authentically portraying a style that allows them to be true to themselves and their personal beliefs.

Sigh.

But they are ants and we should be seeking giants.

We have to … because these ants diminish us in a slightly insidious way.

Insidious? Yeah. It’s not that in our hesitation we decide to do the wrong thing but rather in our silence the ‘less than the right things’ steps in and assumes control.

Oh. Please note that I purposefully say ‘diminish.’

I am certainly not going to suggest that this societal driven hesitation eliminates doing the right thing. That would be silly. That would suggest the spirit, modern or otherwise, can actually be extinguished and I do not believe that is possible. Spirit can be dampened, it can be smothered, it can be diminished, but it cannot be expunged from who and what we are as humans.

But the truly insidious poison offered by ants?

It creates situations in which deserving giants receive undeserved criticism and are cut down in the attempt to make them ant sized.

My point today?

We should demand giants not ants.

We should not accept villains posing as heroes.

And while I would love to suggest that all of us should seek to be giants <and I have on occasion> for today I simply state that in a difficult complex world we should not seek simple ants to be our heroes and light the way, but rather seek the real giants among us to help guide us.

Giants of the spirit of what is right and doing what is right. And, yeah, we should seek giants every day, every hour and every minute.

Society sometimes seems to be stealing our opportunity place real heroes in their rightful place as a giant.

Here is what I believe.

I believe we are in an age of heroes where society encourages less than heroic everyday behavior.

I believe we are in an age demanding giants where society encourages us to be ants.

I believe the modern spirit is not naturally a hesitant one.

I believe we are in an age where doing the right thing should be demanded … in Life & in business.

I believe we are in an age where we should be seeking to eliminate divisiveness, eliminate restrictions on ‘right behavior’ and eliminate the … well … hesitation of the spirit.

Look. I buy the fact no one is perfect and I am even willing to accept that even our heroes can have flaws. But we should demand our heroes to be heroes and not villains who simply believe they are either a hero or offer themselves up as a hero.

There is certainly a complexity and inexactness of good and bad.

There is certainly a complexity and inexactness of the rules that are established ‘by the game of Life’ we play.

There is certainly a complexity and inexactness in Life, society & culture <in and of themselves>.

Yeah. I buy the fact our heroes will always have some complexity and inexactness.

But our heroes should be giants and not ants.

Every villain believes they are a hero in their own mind but, in our minds, we should know a villain can never be a hero. And we should not hesitate to demand a hero to be a hero and not a villain.

This quote. I admit. It gave me pause when I saw it in a book I was reading. I stopped and reread it.

No one is innocent.

That means everyone carries some burden of ‘not innocent’. This seems relevant as more and more people in today’s society appear to investing a lot of energy suggesting they are guilty of little, if not anything.

Well. That is kind of bullshit. No one is innocent. We are all guilty of small, medium and even some large things.

Therefore. It within that last sentence of the opening quote in which resides the larger Life thought.

Your life can be defined by how you bear that guilt.

It is the larger Life thought because “defined by” is actually “choices”. All the choices we make everyday in the little and the small as well as in how we judge ourselves, and our actions, and other’s actions. So we make all of these choices, one by one, dozens & hundreds over time, all the while accumulating some, well, ‘non-innocence.’ From that point on it becomes how we define it:

Do you ignore it?

Do you make excuses?

Do you deny it?

Do you worry about it?

Do you keep it secret?

Do you use it to motivate?

These are questions that reside within each of us <whether we elect to admit that they exist or not>.

These are the questions that define how people bear the guilt.

Oh.

The one that is probably most important?

Do you even recognize you are not innocent?

Whew. Yeah. That is why I wrote this quote down.

I think in today’s world where we seem to rush to blame people and judge them guilty of something <often justly> we tend to push our own lack of innocence, in whatever degree it may exist, into some dusty corner of our mind. But I also believe there is an even more dangerous thing many people do … and that is justifying their own past behavior & actions as ‘not so bad’ … which is basically assuming … well … innocence.

What that means is, I imagine, there are many more people who don’t even know they are ‘not innocent’ of something than there are those who bear the guilt. I imagine this because, well, bearing some guilt is a burden. A burden not just as a weight but it also can bear some emotional erosion aspects if you are not careful.

While those who bear the guilt can sometimes be eaten away from the inside as they think about it I would suggest there are many more minds being eroded by the unseen, unrecognized & unaccepted shadow of guilt which dogs each step one takes.

This comes to Life in a variety of ways.

It erodes in a way that when shit happens to them <because the guilt actually affects their behavior in some seemingly small ways> they scratch their head and wonder why.

Some of these people think fate is against them.

Many of these people think Life isn’t fair.

Many of these people never look at themselves, or to themselves, as the issue … just everything else.

Many of these people just look at others as ones who should be guilty <“I never did anything that bad”>.

And all of that is sad to me. Mostly because their burden of guilt is most likely something manageable if they would only take the time to face it — face the guilt and eliminate that weightless, but diminishing, shadow following them and choose to carry it instead.

Look.

We all have guilt for something. None of us are innocent. The something could be big or it could be very small. But that is the funny thing about ‘not innocent’ … its size doesn’t matter.

Normal laws of space & weight do not apply to ‘not innocent’. A sliver of ‘not innocent’ can bear the same weight as a mountain of ‘not innocent’.

We should all take a moment, every day in fact, and remind ourselves, especially before we jump to judging others, that if you ignore the degrees & dimensions of the guilty … none of us are innocent.

But, most importantly, once you accept no one is innocent <self included> what truly matters is how one chooses to bear that weight.

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

—-

Winston Churchill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Men will defend most passionately, that which they doubt the most.”

——

Frank Herbert

====

Well. I admit. I try to avoid fanatics. I realize in doing so I am doing so at the expense of debate & discussion. I say this as someone who has dedicated an entire site to enlightened conflict and actually believing positive conflict leads to sparks of knowledge and learning. But fanatics are maddening to debate with. The debate, the intellectual conflict, becomes anything but intellectual or enlightening and the only sparks that occur tend to be ones of frustration. Specifically, they are maddening for two reasons:

Generalities not specifics

More often than not there is a broad sweeping generalization or claim grounded on ‘common sense.’ Debates are dependent upon specifics. Debating generalities is like swatting at clouds <that is maddening>. Beyond generalities the main constructive base for formulating the opinion is … well … common sense, i.e., “just think about it … its common sense when you look at it!”

This is maddening because how the hell do you debate common sense that is anything but common or of any sense?

More often than not a fanatic uses one, maybe two, narrow well-honed factoids. They are stilts upon which the fanaticism balances itself. This is maddening for two reasons:

<1> the factoid is, well, yes, a fact — but selective truth at best. It is a fact selected from a larger group of facts. So it may actually be the truth, but not the whole truth;

<2> whole truth is rarely easy to explain. Truth, in general, is rarely simple. Stilts are simple. Enough said on why that is maddening.

Regardless.

You can tell when you have run into a fanatic because there arrives a point where it is counterproductive to further discuss a topic. Simplistically, that point is when one person crosses into fanaticism. It is typically at this point when a mind closes.

And when the mind closes being right matters more than actual truth.

And when the mind closes there is actually no chance for a rational discussion because you actually cannot even agree to disagree. There is no agreement.

This is because a fanatic must be right and, therefore, if they are right than everyone who disagrees must be wrong.

This is maddening.

I am not sure this last thought is a reflection of a closed mind or simply a stubborn fanatical belief, but with most fanatics their position and belief becomes who they are … a strong aspect of their self-identity.

Even worse? It is an aspect of not only their identity but also their self-worth. Think about that for a second.

In your attempt to get a fanatic to change their position you are actually attempting to undo who they are as well as their sense of worth. Think about that the next time you gnash your teeth over a stubborn fanatic.

Suffice it to say, a closed mind is a bad thing.

Here is my hope when dealing with a fanatic. Sometimes, yes, sometimes … you can say something that has been said a zillion times before and somehow that ‘something’ reveals a new truth. By the way, this is more often than not not a simple truth or factoid, it is more often you stumbling across the moment in their past <or creating a visceral mental tie to that moment> that was actually the foundation for the fanaticism. Somehow you reveal a thought that reminds the person of a thought long misplaced or forgotten which ultimately creates ‘something’ which begins the unraveling of the whole foundation of the fanaticism.

My real point here is that the ‘something’ more often than not does not address the superficial surface fanaticism but instead addresses an underlying underpinning.

Please note the key word I used above – ‘stumble’. You can pick away at memories and try to reveal the ‘tipping moment’ in their thinking but more often than not you just stumble across it … uh oh … at the right time. Yeah. Timing matters too <and you never know about the timing>.

Anyway.

Fanatics are not just maddening but they can also be a little frightening.

===

“Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.”

Laurens Van der Post

===

Now. Let me be clear about fanatics. Because some of the things I have written may suggest that these are all people wearing tin foil hates living in their parents’ basement reading up on the Illuminati.

That is not true. I would be willing to bet we all know fanatics. It can be someone you know well, even like most of the time, except for that “one topic.” The one topic for which they reach into their pocket and pull out their fanatic hat and put it on.

Here is where I give fanatics a break. The path I am suggesting is a trying, difficult path that takes a lot of work.

I am a curiosity guy and I walk a curious path. I believe … no … I know that there will always be something yet to be known that can significantly later or even completely undo everything we, or I, know and believe.

In fact … my Life is almost an ongoing quest to learn whatever I can to unlearn everything I know. And, yet, I am confident in my beliefs so that positively impacts how I live my Life and conduct myself. In other words, while confident in my beliefs I am not defined by them which permits me to constantly reexamine them in light of new information. I say all that because I know that the whole concept of ‘unlearning what you believe’ and ‘constantly seeking new knowledge with an eye to altering one’s beliefs’ is not an easy task.

It is easier to establish some beliefs and then move on to expanding the mind on a variety of other things. Let’s call this ‘closing parts of your mind’ rather than simply suggesting someone has a closed mind.

Life shrivels with someone who has a closed mind, but a partially closed mind permits enough growth to ignore the stagnant parts of the mind. Young people tend to be more receptive to the concept that there will always be some unknown fact just around the next proverbial corner that will turn some belief upside down. Older people tend to close off portions of their minds therefore eliminating differing opinions which could potentially alter something they hold true.

I believe <just my opinion> this happens because of the whole self-identity and self-worth thing I brought up earlier.

Young people are still growing into their identity and have shit for self-worth. They are trying out different thoughts and ideas like new clothes. Outgrowing some and ultimately wearing some until they fall apart.

Older people have some things that are ground into their identity & worth.

Anyway. Fanatics actually have an advantage over … well … me at least.

They stridently believe in something. That must be a comfort to them in Life.

I envy them their comfort.

And, yet, maddened by the fact they are so comfortable they won’t explore a different, maybe uncomfortable, thought.

Should we all believe in nothing? Of course not.

Life throughout history reveals the constant struggle between what we knew, what we know now and what will be known. It is a reflection of a constant struggle for truth which is a malleable concept even on a good day.

So most of us try and find truth when we can find it and as best as we can.

Fanatics don’t try.

Look. The challenge for all of us is to be careful how tightly we dogmatically cling to what we see as ‘the truth’ and how strongly we attack others’ truth. Heck. At any given point we might just both be right … or wrong.

Regardless.

Fanatics have lost that challenge. In fact, I am not sure they even recognize the challenge. I find that maddening. That is why I avoid fanatics.

“Show not what has been done, but what can be. How beautiful the world would be if there were a procedure for moving through labyrinths.”―

Umberto Eco

==============

“You are not going nowhere just because you haven’t gotten where you want to go yet.”

—-

Taylor Swift

====

So. Direction is one of the most stressful discussion in Life & in business. Where are you going? How are you planning on getting there? And, of course, are you sure that is the right direction?

Well.

I never thought I would ever use a Taylor Swift quote let alone use it to make a point.

I loved the quote. And it sparked me to thinking because if you think about it … not getting to where you want to be and nowhere … can look awfully similar.

But it is not.

Not even close.

The idea of “getting somewhere”, whether in your career, in Life, in personal change, in a relationship, in anything, sometimes seems to dominate our Life. This destination, this ‘thing’ we have envisioned in our mind, becomes sort of a measurement with regard to how we are effectively, or ineffectively, living our life. And in doing so if we are somewhere other than ‘there’ which may mean we simply just haven’t got there, yet, a lot of people suggest that means you are nowhere.

That is wrong. Very very <very> wrong.

We spends gobs of time and money trying to answer these questions. If you think about it while it may not sound completely absurd (defining direction insures you are at least not going somewhere completely useless) it can actually look like an incredibly poor investment with a dubious ROI.

It can be a stress on your everyday life.

It can be a burden.

It can create an absurdly long list of plans and things to do.

It can also translate into a lot of wasted time (because often where you decide to go isn’t exactly where you end up simply because Life’s terrain dictated a slightly better destination).

I sometimes think this is a reflection of what is wrong in today’s society – this belief if you haven’t achieved something you have achieved nothing.

Most of Life is a reflection of a shitload of journeys and paths and, well, a lot of walking, running, tripping and crawling. Because of that a shitload of people would suggest that most of your life you have been running in place <which sounds silly as I type it> or ‘wandering aimlessly <which also sounds silly as I type it because most times most people are wanting to get to where they want to be> and basically they are suggesting that, uhm, you have expended energy — and got nowhere.

99% of the time those people are just assholes.

Assholes who focus on destinations and not journeys. They only take satisfaction in highlighting specific milestones, objectives and outcomes achieved. They struggle to see the satisfaction in exploration, wandering and the journeys taken to the outcomes.

Look. I am not going to suggest achieving something, specifically, getting to where you want to be is not an admirable and useful objective. Because it is. Getting to where you want to be is aspirational and it implies you want to be better than what you are today. Being better and becoming better is something all of us should embrace.

But I will suggest that simply because you have not got there yet that you have gone nowhere.

In fact, I could argue that simply deciding where you want to be is somewhere.

In fact, doing something, even something small, is better than nothing and is something other than nowhere.

Anyway. You know what? it’s all exploration even if you don’t care about where you want to go. Why? You end up somewhere.

Here is the bottom line.

I would guess 90% of us are somewhere other than where we want to be. We may see glimpses of it and we may actually have touched it briefly, but most of us are still in the midst of getting there.

<to complete that equation I envision 5% don’t even try having given up and 5% believe they are there>

90% of us are certainly not ‘nowhere.’ We are simply works in progress trying to get somewhere better than who and what we are today. That means suggesting just because you haven’t got to where you wanted to be is ‘nowhere’ would mean that 90% of us are milling about in some wretched space of nothingness … and that is silly. Most of us are pretty happy and fairly content and typically thinking about being better.

There is a lesson here.

While I imagine Ms. Swift doesn’t philosophize on this thought like Umberto Eco, she has certainly embraced her responsibility & empowerment to communicate the right things to hordes of young people. And for that I applaud her. I do so not only because she is impacting young people’s minds in a good smart way but because there are a boatload of older people who have been gobsmacked into believing if you haven’t got to where you want to be that you are nowhere <and they do not hesitate to tell a shitload of people that>.

Embracing an ‘outcome is the most important’ Life philosophy is a slippery slope.

I would much rather we embrace a “just because you have not got to where you want to be does not necessarily mean you are nowhere” Life philosophy. You can embrace both but if you begin with the latter you are more likely to not only encourage the right behavior in people you will most likely encourage a more positive view of your own Life.

Lastly.

Okay. All this may sound rudderless. But 99% of the time while this discussion sounds, well, directionless, void of objective & absent of any ‘milestones’, it is none of those things. 99% of the time we have a sense of some destination, we just can’t really articulate it. Now. In a world that has an unhealthy relationship with measurement, achievement & “if it is intangible, can you make it tangible”, that ‘not able to articulate’ is a sonuvabitch to try and embrace.

I sometimes think that end of the end of this type of ‘going somewhere, just not sure where’journey the people who didn’t try to cram all the plans into the time and simply kept walking knowing they would get somewhere will absolutely find themselves some place better than where they started from and most likely end up somewhere good.

I will say Life can truly be a ‘wonderland’ if you don’t over think it. Sometimes the journey is an exploration and as long as you keep exploring the “somewhere” you get to is richer and, in the case of a business or an individual, maybe a stronger place. Maybe Life, and even business to some extent, is a time to wander.

To explore. To just see what you will see. And see what you will find.

Maybe this is time to remember Calvin & Hobbes: “Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere.”

Maybe Alice in Wonderland, Umberto Eco & Taylor Swift and Calvin & Hobbes have the right idea. Nowhere may be a good destination objective.